Peter Bekins Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I am afraid that I haven't quite gotten the hang of using the syntax modules. I would like to build a dataset that includes all verbal complements within the psalms (I am not interested in complements of verbless clauses or היה, etc.). I would then like to sub-categorize the complements by the type of referring expression, i.e., proper nouns, determined noun phrases, construct phrases, etc. The second phase seems like it would be the most complicated, but I cannot get the first part to work. I have tried a number of permutations of the following search: predicate phrase governing both a predicate (specified as a verb; I will exclude היה once I get it working) and a complement phrase. I cannot make sense of the results, however, since a large proportion of complements have been excluded: Am I overlooking something simple? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Pete, No, you're not overlooking something simple. You're asking about the most complex set of tagging, though. The parallelism and gapping in the Psalms continue to defy the current syntax searching of Accordance. The hits you're getting should be correct, but you're also right that a number are being excluded. I've just tried a few different tests to see if I get any hits from Psalm 1 and something is clearly off with the searching. I've checked the tagged data at the same time, and it's fine. And the trees show the complements we're looking for, too. I'll send this on up to get it looked at. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Bekins Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Robert, I wondered if the way we nested clauses in the Psalms to account for parallelism was having an effect, but when I switch the scope to Genesis I have similar issues. For instance, the results skip from Gen 1:2 to Gen 1:14! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Pete, Well, that clearly indicates something has gone wonky with the syntax searching in the last few updates, since this wasn't an issue that last time I ran some serious searches (compiling data for a project last winter). Email me if you want to discuss the tagged files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Bekins Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, I glad to know that I am not losing my marbles. I thought that similar searches had worked successfully for me in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The searches have definitely changed for the worse in the case, but that has nothing to do with your lost marbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now